The issue is simply one of Americanized spellings–should words ending in o-u-r be rendered as o-r instead? It is a simple choice of style.

Unless you are Mr. Kizziah and presumably other King James Onlyists. Kizziah sees changing “Saviour” to “Savior” as almost blasphemous. “They have given us a six-letter Savior in place of a seven-letter Saviour. In Bible numerics seven is the number of compelteness … On the other hand six is the number of man which is earthly not heavenly.”

Kizziah tells of a satanic conspiracy to prepare the world for the Beast, whose number is 666, who will be a “six-letter Savior,” a counterfeit of Jesus Christ. He says, “That’s the way he will spell his name, S-a-v-i-o-r not S-a-v-i-o-u-r. No thank you Satan.”

Curiously enough, I spell my Savior’s name as “J-e-s-u-s,” but that isn’t the issue here.

Two things must be established:

“Saviour” is not a unique designation of Jesus Christ, even in the King James Version.

Six-letter names are not satanic.

As to the first issue, we have merely to mention a few verses from the Old Testament.

In 2 Kings 13:5, Joash is sent by God to be a “saviour” (c.f., v. 25).

In Nehemiah 9:27, multiple “saviours” are sent to help according to the mercies of God.

In Obadiah 1:21, multiple “saviours” are mentioned.

One could argue that the difference here is capitalization, that a lower-case “saviour” refers to man while an upper-case “Saviour” refers to Christ. However, this is not necessarily so, as in both Testaments God is referred to by the lower-case “saviour” (see 2 Samuel 22:3 and Ephesians 5:23).

Therefore, if “saviour” with seven-letters is a mark of Deity, why does even the King James Version use it in reference to men? It is because it is simply a matter of spelling, and not necessarily a theological point of contention.

As for the second issue mentioned above, if six-letter names being evil, why would names of the Bible be given six-letter names? Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Esther, Psalms, Isaiah, Daniel, Haggai, and Romans all have six-letter names.

Christ is also called by several six-letter titles, including Master, Prince, Author, Ending, Leader, Ransom, Shiloh, and there are probably more. If a six-letter title like “Savior” is satanic, should we not be trying to add a letter to all these other words to make them worthy of Deity with seven-letters? Logic and honesty require consistency in these matters.

Also, let us not forget that “Lord,” a common title of Christ, has the dreaded six letter length in Greek, kurios. And who can argue that “Christ” does not have six letters? If having a six-letter Savior is indicative of the Mark fo the Beast, why is having a six-letter Christ not?

The point is, the modern versions and renditions of the King James Version do no wrong in using “Savior” instead of “Saviour.” If you want to use the Americanized spelling, do so. If you don’t want to use the ”Americanised” spelling, don’t do so.

Just don’t try to use logic with more holes in it than Swiss cheese to make a doctrine out of your preference.

Updated to fix minor typographical and grammatical issues.Updated again for the same reason.

People like that scare me, because they seemingly have chosen an arbitrary point in time to represent the entire summary of God’s true word. I think they need to realize that the original manuscript wasn’t even in English at all. Then perhaps they will quit their whining.

Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

Jordan, Nathan, thank you both for your comments. They’re appreciated! And you both are absolutely right.

I didn’t mention it in this particular post, but I used to be a faithful KJV-Onlyist. Having left that system behind, I now take whatever opportunity I have to not only expose Onlyist arguments for what they are, but to hopefully open other believers’ eyes to the wonderful freedom we have in Christ, which includes the freedom to choose a Bible version we are comfortable with and which we will be able to understand and assimilate into heart and mind.

Student of the sciences, the religions, the science fictions, and the fantasies… But mostly I’m just trying to find my groove in this big, crazy world.

I know what you mean, Jordan, but that’s a double-edged sword. While the King James Version does provide some insight better than other versions, at times it fails to. For instance, it fails to differentiate between demons and the Devil. At other places, it creates too much difference in meaning, such as using “Easter” where “Passover” should have been used.

But these translational issues exist with just about every version, to some extent or another. Yet it is only with the King James Version that some Christians are enforcing an almost cult-like loyalty to.

Rick: I personally believe that KJV includes some shades of meaning and accuracy that some of the other versions do not, but I also agree that it’s not the only “valid” version of the Bible. I suppose it really depends on the person. And no matter which version, I need to read more of it. :-)